If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I still think my idea of crop tops ie half shirts would be best at allowing the service judge to better estimate the lowest rib. And it'd definitely draw more viewership in line with BWF's plans.

I think creative teams will find a way to craft a top that distorts the location of the lowest rib higher. But if the idea works, I am not against it but I think a lot of weekend tournament players wouldn't like it, if adopted at the lower levels.

The word "obvious" in this context means it's the responsibility of the player to demonstrate that the server's actions are closer to the rules and not straddling the lines of the legality like we currently have.

For example: you would have to serve below the top of the net to achieve an upward trajectory and if the flight is close to level or level, than that would be a fault. So the word obvious would force you to serve somewhere at the middle of the net level to keep within the rules. Which I think is better than trying to determine the last rib of someone's body.

And you think that that is easy to 'enforce with any kind of consistency' (your words)? No, you've just replaced one hard-to-judge rule that is at least based around a non-subjective fact (height of lowest rib) with a totally subjective rule. You've suggested something objectively worse!

I still think my idea of crop tops ie half shirts would be best at allowing the service judge to better estimate the lowest rib. And it'd definitely draw more viewership in line with BWF's plans.

Originally Posted by V1lau

I think creative teams will find a way to craft a top that distorts the location of the lowest rib higher. But if the idea works, I am not against it but I think a lot of weekend tournament players wouldn't like it, if adopted at the lower levels.

And you think that that is easy to 'enforce with any kind of consistency' (your words)? No, you've just replaced one hard-to-judge rule that is at least based around a non-subjective fact (height of lowest rib) with a totally subjective rule. You've suggested something objectively worse!

The height of the lowest rib on an individual is not subjective, but the line judges don't go out and physically exam each individual to see objectively where their bottom ribs are, do they? So the determination of the lowest rib is subjective to the perception and experience of each service judge.

Secondly I think you are reading the rules without taking into consideration what I have said about the service action and reason the word "obvious" was injected into it.

In principal as long as you serve somewhere below the top of the net, you have already accomplished the first rule I laid out which was "to serve in a upward trajectory", can we agree to this?

The language "obvious" is subjective I concede that point, but its usage is necessary because it puts the responsibility on the server to serve farther down from the top of the net to create an "obvious" upward trajectory of the bird. The language was included to make player stay closer to the rules, rather than skirting the rule's edges of an subjective determination (location of the lowest rib) like we have today, which is why it looks like a lot of player's lowest rib is somewhere near the bottom of their chest, especially when you don't have service judges!

So I think that it's much easier to objectively determine the serve point relative to the top of the net, than it is to determine objectively the position of the lowest rib relative to the serve point.

The language "obvious" is subjective I concede that point, but its usage is necessary because it puts the responsibility on the server to serve farther down from the top of the net to create an "obvious" upward trajectory of the bird. The language was included to make player stay closer to the rules, rather than skirting the rule's edges of an subjective determination (location of the lowest rib) like we have today, which is why it looks like a lot of player's lowest rib is somewhere near the bottom of their chest, especially when you don't have service judges!

"Swish"

hAHA did you just "swish" amleto?

Look "obvious" is not even vaguely measurable so it is a non starter. You have not proposed a followable rule here just an idea of how you would like to see service go down. If I see a shuttle being hit 1 degree up I think that is obviously going up. Others wouldn't consider it untill say 25 degrees up. Same with the racket pointing downwards.

If you are saying the rule should be serve anywhere below the tape, in an upward direction with the racket pointing in a downwards direction fair enough.

This is very interesting! I was not aware of this. I have been serving the same way forever now, and it probably won't change. I mean, I just do club play, along with some local (and currently extremely) small time tournaments. I always keep part of the head just below my waist upon service, and have had little issues with getting a good low serve over. *shrug* But still, the way some players kinda push that envelope and seemingly bring that racket up to almost mid chest when they hit the bird, ESPECIALLY like Mohammad Ahsan in that World Championships MD final!! And got called out on multiple times..haha.

If you are saying the rule should be serve anywhere below the tape, in an upward direction with the racket pointing in a downwards direction fair enough.

That is exactly what I am saying.

If you are able to differentiate between 1 degree up (not a fault) and 0 degree flat (fault) and the serve is 1 degree up then don't call a fault. But I suspect most service judges would be unable to discern that difference and that is where "obvious" comes into play. It is up to the player to perform a service that a service judge would have no problem deciding if the service is going up (not a fault) and flat (fault).

I am assuming that placing the player with the responsibility of demonstrating the service trajectory to be going up will put a constraint on how high they can serve and pressure to serve lower, so as not to be faulted. I am also assuming that the difference between a service trajectory clearly going up or flat is not insignificant, but without looking a pictures services at 0,1,2,3 ..nth degree, we would just be speculating.

If you are able to differentiate between 1 degree up (not a fault) and 0 degree flat (fault) and the serve is 1 degree up then don't call a fault. But I suspect most service judges would be unable to discern that difference and that is where "obvious" comes into play. It is up to the player to perform a service that a service judge would have no problem deciding if the service is going up (not a fault) and flat (fault).

I am assuming that placing the player with the responsibility of demonstrating the service trajectory to be going up will put a constraint on how high they can serve and pressure to serve lower, so as not to be faulted. I am also assuming that the difference between a service trajectory clearly going up or flat is not insignificant, but without looking a pictures services at 0,1,2,3 ..nth degree, we would just be speculating.

2
I don't think this is a good way to do it, but just for arguments sake, if what I said:
"If you are saying the rule should be serve anywhere below the tape, in an upward direction with the racket pointing in a downwards direction fair enough."
Is exactly what your saying, then I can tell you it is impossible to not hit the shuttle upwards without it going into the net. So you wouldn't have to judge 1 degree etc, if he made contact below the tape even a mm and the shuttle goes over it has gone upwards that would be obvious to anyone.

2
So you wouldn't have to judge 1 degree etc, if he made contact below the tape even a mm and the shuttle goes over it has gone upwards that would be obvious to anyone.
[/I][/COLOR]

If a player is serving 1mm below the tape, can a service judge tell the difference from a service from 0mm or 1mm below the tape at a glance? I would argue the answer to that question is no, if you think the answer is yes then we are at an impasse and we would have to do some science to find out the answer which is probably not going to happen.

In your example of 1mm, if I am right and the service judge can not tell the difference between serving 1mm below or at 0mm then the server would be faulted.

If a player is serving 1mm below the tape, can a service judge tell the difference from a service from 0mm or 1mm below the tape at a glance? I would argue the answer to that question is no, if you think the answer is yes then we are at an impasse and we would have to do some science to find out the answer which is probably not going to happen.

In your example of 1mm, if I am right and the service judge can not tell the difference between serving 1mm below or at 0mm then the server would be faulted.

v1au, I think you are forgetting how umpiring/judging works! You set the rule in 'stone cold facts', and then let the umpire decide.

Do you think line judges can 'see' a shuttle contacted 1mm on the edge of the line, or 1mm out? No. But they make a judgement.

If a player is serving 1mm below the tape, can a service judge tell the difference from a service from 0mm or 1mm below the tape at a glance? I would argue the answer to that question is no, if you think the answer is yes then we are at an impasse and we would have to do some science to find out the answer which is probably not going to happen.

In your example of 1mm, if I am right and the service judge can not tell the difference between serving 1mm below or at 0mm then the server would be faulted.

I have no idea what you are driving at. If you want them to serve "obviously" lower than for example the net tape and not push that boundary at all, why not just say, "my idea is for them to serve for example 45cm down from the top of the net tape." This way you would have made a followable rule rather than just a vague idea. So 45 cm from top tape that would be everybody serving from the same place 1.1m from the ground, is that your idea

I have no idea what you are driving at. If you want them to serve "obviously" lower than for example the net tape and not push that boundary at all, why not just say, "my idea is for them to serve for example 45cm down from the top of the net tape." This way you would have made a followable rule rather than just a vague idea. So 45 cm from top tape that would be everybody serving from the same place 1.1m from the ground, is that your idea

I agree with the hypothesis but I don't believe the implementation will be a successful theory. What if the serve is 45.1cm or 45.5cm, will those be a fault? How will you determine the exact height of the contact point that can change between breathes of the server?

The difference between my proposal and yours is that you are requiring the service judge to make precise distinctions and measurements like 45cm(legal) and 45.1(fault), which I believe is impossible. My proposal, the server has the obligation to demonstrate clearly that the serve is going up, to the satisfaction of the service judge, I believe that distinction is much easier to determine than yours.

In your proposal I bet servers will still get faulted for serves at 45cm and (+/- an amount of cm) above and below 45cm, which will lead to the same confusion and frustration we have today with the lower rib determination. My proposal, the onus is entirely on the player which put pressure on the server to serve lower since in the language I've used, it makes any serve close to the top a fault.

v1au, I think you are forgetting how umpiring/judging works! You set the rule in 'stone cold facts', and then let the umpire decide.

Rule: Serve must be hit in an obvious or clearly(meaning onus on server to demonstrate) upward trajectory, Agreed?

Stone cold facts: Easily identifiable, Serve point and Top of the net, Agreed?
Serve can either go up, flat or down, Agreed?

Umpire decide: Did I see the bird go up? If so, then good! If no, fault! Was it close, fault. Agreed?

Pls kindly let me know which step I am forgetting? thx

Originally Posted by amleto

Do you think line judges can 'see' a shuttle contacted 1mm on the edge of the line, or 1mm out? No. But they make a judgement.

Why does the BWF and players all want instant reply on line calls again? O' yeah, because human are not reliable instruments in making minute distinctions and subject to optical illusions. But human are good at making larger distinctions like if the bird hit the middle of the line or inside the line!

I agree with the hypothesis but I don't believe the implementation will be a successful theory. What if the shuttle is 0.5mm in or 0.5mm out, will those be a fault? How will you determine the exact contact location of the shuttle that will change on every point?

The difference between my proposal and yours is that you are requiring the service judge to make precise distinctions and measurements like in(legal) and out(fault), which I believe is impossible. My proposal, the player has the obligation to demonstrate clearly that the shuttle is in, to the satisfaction of the service judge, I believe that distinction is much easier to determine than yours.

In your proposal I bet shuttles that land out will get called in and shuttles that land in will get called out, which will lead to the same confusion and frustration we have today with HUMAN ERROR. My proposal, the onus is entirely on the JUDGE, who has no idea how to subjectively intepret 'obvious'.